Declaratory relief and possession: a bare title suit fails where the plaintiff omits available consequential relief.

A widow was held not to have acquired absolute title to the suit property, as the concurrent factual findings treated her only as a life estate holder and the later contrary view was unsupported by evidence. The Court also applied the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, holding that a bare suit for declaration of title was not maintainable where the defendants and their tenants were in possession and the plaintiff could seek consequential relief of possession. The omission of that further relief barred declaratory relief, and the dismissal of the suit was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the widow had absolute title to the suit property and the sale made by her was valid; (ii) whether a suit for declaration of title was maintainable without claiming consequential relief of possession when the property was in the possession of the defendants and their tenants.

Issue (i): whether the widow had absolute title to the suit property and the sale made by her was valid.

Analysis: The prior findings of the trial court and the first appellate court had held that the widow was only a life estate holder. The later conclusion of the High Court that she had acquired absolute title was not supported by evidence and there was no reason to reverse the concurrent factual findings. The applicable Hindu succession regime had also reached Pondicherry only later.

Conclusion: The finding that the widow had absolute title was erroneous; she did not have absolute title, and the sale could not be upheld on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether a suit for declaration of title was maintainable without claiming consequential relief of possession when the property was in the possession of the defendants and their tenants.

Analysis: Under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, declaratory relief cannot be granted where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief, omits to do so. Where the defendants and their tenants were in possession and capable of delivering possession, the plaintiff was required to ask for the consequential relief of possession. Granting a bare declaration would defeat the object of the provision and encourage multiplicity of proceedings. The authority on declaratory suits without possession applied only where the defendant was not in a position to deliver possession.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable without a prayer for consequential relief of possession.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court failed because the suit for declaration alone was barred by the statutory requirement of seeking further relief when available, so the dismissal of the suit stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for declaration of title is not maintainable under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, when the plaintiff is entitled to further relief and the defendants or their tenants are in possession and capable of delivering possession, but such relief is omitted.

---